@KUSTEVE Terrible and sad. I’m just so confused how they can’t get out of their hole while sitting on trillions of dollars in oil.

Looking at it from purely a business standpoint, why would the U.S. not strike a deal with them for enormous amounts of oil at an absurdly low price. What we could do is hire thousands of Venezuelans to pump the oil for U.S. dollars. A great deal for both parties. As they introduce USD into their economy they can begin to deflate their own money until they essentially get it back dollar for dollar. Sure it might take 10-20 years, but right now they literally have monopoly money.

Benefits the U.S. because we can get out of the middle east oil game completely. If we have Venezuelan oil for crazy cheap, we wouldn’t need the them. On top of that, we can use this cheaply acquire oil, funnel it through the federal government and sell that oil to the large corporations at a competitive rate. That money would be used strictly to lower our National debt.

Too bad their government has been very weird about foreign oil companies coming in. And ours is probably too stupid to do something like this. We would rather start a war or assassinate a president and create hostility in an area of the world that already hates Western ideology. And then borrow money from other countries to pay for that war.

@Kcmatt7 I think that their past practice of nationalizing foreign companies and their pro-“Revolution” philosophy (translate: anti-USA) have made everyone leery of Venezuela’s government or trying to do business there.

@mayjay Yea I would have to look more at the past. I’m just a young whipper snapper so I’m not as familiar with Venezuela’s past as I probably should be.

At some point they will be desperate enough to do something. What I am suggesting though, would be a project by our government that we would probably bid out to a company. They wouldn’t be able to “nationalize” it because it would be under the United States Government umbrella.

Now the idea is obviously more simple than the execution. But, I mean they are sitting on a gold mine and don’t even have the money to extract it. If a stable country doesn’t get involved, another one will see an opportunity and pounce on them while they are vulnerable. They are just a few years from literally being bankrupt and not having the ability to offer any sort of defense against a hostile takeover.

@Kcmatt7 I don’t have a lot of knowledge on this, but I think it is US policy not to buy oil from Venezuela because any revenues they get would bolster the anti-US gov’t. I can’t imagine the Trump administration cozying up to the Castro followers in Caracas. And I don’t think anyone would trust the money to flow into the general economy–I would guess you would at best end up with a few oligarchs controlling it, as happened in Russia after the USSR fell.

@mayjay You’re the man. Let me know what you find. I’m just scared of the wrong people with the right resources taking over the biggest oil reserve in the world and what that could do. Venezuela should and could be an extremely rich country if it were ran correctly.

I need to start reading more… My knowledge of history is nowhere near what I would like it to be. I’ve finally hit that age where I actually read and care about world/political news. Is this what people call "maturing?’

@Kcmatt7 A very big part of it is from maturing! Actually, the process of seeing that the world is more complicated than our immediate horizons is a lifelong one of growth and open-mindedness. When you get older, you will be like me–hoping you will continue growing without any more of that effin’ “maturing”!

It is simple and complicated at the same time. Venezuela at one time was probably the richest country in South America and now likely the poorest…this is what socialism will do to you.

When Chavez took over they had a great economy and the price of oil was high and raising even for the Venezuelan crude that is very heavy and requires considerably more refining than the lighter Middle East and North America crudes and thus it is less desirable.

Like all good socialists, Chavez nationalized the foreign oil companies that were producing the bulk of the oil and started placing “comrades” with no technical expertise in charge of the business. The net result was that the oil production dropped considearble but with the cost of oil going up, even with the lower production the income was not initially greatly affected. Then the Middle East countries decide to pump more oil and lower the price and the demand for the less desirable Venezuelan crude dropped like a rock and what did the government do? Nationalized all foreign businesses, even those not related to oil, and essentially killed the last goose that laid the golden eggs.

Margaret Thatcher famously said…the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money…and that is what happened in Venezuela and now there is no one left to take money from and they are flat broke.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

The GM plant that had been there a long time was just nationalized. I believe it was mostly an assembly plant that without the parts will fold fast. A shinning example of socialism at work, ruining yet another country.

I know many people from Venezuela and the situation there is dire.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

It has been pretty much a dictatorship since Chavez was in charge. While he was confiscating property, had oil money and was giving away money he had some support. Now that here is nothing left to take the support has completely gone away and the people are no longer supporting Maduro. A few weeks ago he shut down Congress and had to reinstate it a few days later. Every day it looks more like Cuba, a dictator with support of the military and well compensated government employees keeping the rest of the population down. Unlike Cuba, Venezuela has large number of people that were educated here and that support a true democracy and the situation is bound to change in the not too distant future.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

Any type of Government without checks and balances is doomed to fail. It leaves too much power with so few. As history as proven time and time again. Power and money corrupts the minds of those that intend to do good. Even a Monarchy can work for a season. Yet when the King or Queen that dies, that next in line may not have the love of the people on their mind. It Saddens me to no end to see so many young Americans trying to tear down the American concept not realizing they are merely jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I guess the old saying if you don’t know the cost of freedom then you’re doomed to lose it.

@approxinfinity, I really don’t want to debate politics. I’ve made an arse out of myself too many times. Yet it was the Dems that enacted the nuclear option first. I assume this is what we are referring to? Which by the way was never the intentions of the founding fathers anyways. So in a way it just went back to the way it was supposed to be before the Dems invented filibustering. Every person has a right to speak their mind. What unnerves me is what is happening on college campuses. The mind set of not even listening to an opposing view is always bad for business. Especially a country that is supposed to be about freedom. And even worse the opposing views are being met with violence. Maybe this younger generation is just pissed about being left with such a burden of Government debt. God knows we didn’t help them any. Either way it saddens me. Each generation of Americans are supposed to leave this country better than when they found it. I think we can all agree that hasn’t happened. So Sad politics are dividing this country. The old saying, “People shouldn’t be afraid over their government. Their government should be afraid of their people.” If only the people of this country could unite? Their is so many things we all agree upon. Yet listen to the news and it’s apples to oranges. I would go on but I really don’t want to step on anybody’s toes. Politics, Government, and religion are really no, no’s.

@DoubleDD The founding fathers intended only landholding white men to vote. While they got a lot of things right, some things have definitely needed refactoring. I believe the filibuster is a healthy tool when used to promote bipartisan decision making, but when Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option, our political system had already degraded into party-line politics. We can debate the reasons why. But we can (I think) agree that there is essentially no such thing as bipartisanism now. Two party politics have a stranglehold on this country. We should be electing people on the merits, not based upon party affiliation. I believe a multiparty system would result in coalition building and usher in a new era of compromise, and in turn would force politics back into the arena of representing the desires of the people. We can dream.

@approxinfinity — I like the electing on merits a lot. Not on race, gender, or lot in life. I’m on board with ya. To many of us care about the same things. Yet we get trapped in our current two party system.

Oh man you dragged me in. Yet if you’re a party that has lost over thousands seats on the state and national level? Don’t you think the people have spoken? Don’t forget a lot of the founding fathers that had slaves felt it was best to end it.

Please I beg you lets not continue. I wasn’t kidding when I said I made an arse out of myself on these subjects. I don’t want to burn bridges or step on toes. I’m just a KU fan trying to make sense of life. I love that Jayhawk.

I guess the people having voted doesn’t necessarily equate to what is best for the people. Regardless, suggesting that one of the two parties has a mandate IMHO is not fruitful. We hop between two crappy alternatives as the blame ping pongs.

@approxinfinity — I agree too a point. I really do. Yet I’m going off you’re dream. Which I like a lot. However in a two party system? That we have today and yesterday? I think it is a mandate. I think the voting Americans are sending a message. Whether they are right or wrong. They are sending a message, and isn’t that what a democracy/Republic is. To send persons to represent the voice of the citizens. We can argue whether the message is correct or not. However if we are to leave the proper decisions in the hands of a few because the voters just don’t know. Then are we any different than socialism and Communism? I don’t have a lot of answers just questions. Also I don’t it’s fair to bring in Germany and Hitler. At first the people were starving and looking for change. As time went on there was no way they could come against such a cruel leader. It was to late. They would’ve have been killed for their defiance.

That’s why I stated in my original post on this subject a government without checks and balances is doomed to fail. I know a lot of Americans just can’t stand Trump yet remember he can never become a dictator. Not saying he would just saying he can’t. Just look at his Muslim ban? Held up in the courts. At the end of the day America is a nation of laws. Yes the laws are challenged. Yet I have to believe justice is served no matter who is in power.

I still like your idea best though. I’m getting real tired of the two party system. It’s become quite corrupt. No matter what aisle you’re on.

@DoubleDD As I understand it, and I wasn’t around for it, the Nazis rose to power on a nationalistic antisemitic platform running opposed to the Democratic government in power after WWI. I get your point that some people were starving; that doesn’t discount the fact that a dissatisfaction in the existing system empowered the Nazis to win public elections by blaming others and being hyper nationalistic. Similar song and dance.

I’m concerned by a feeling that it couldn’t happen here; discounting the possibility because we are different is a bit of the American exceptionalism that we often slide into.

You’re not crossing a line. We are friends, I’ll be honest how I feel. You be honest how you feel. We work this over a bit and move on, the KU Buckets way.

Right now, supporters of both parties believe that party line is the only option. I believe the Democrats have to be in power before we can get to a multiparty system. At that point both sides will be able to look at splintering the party as a viable option. The Republicans because a faction will feel the need to redefine themselves in order to win, the Democrats because the progressives have been stymied but stayed locked into the party to avoid the Republicans dismantling of our democracy, at least that’s their perception, be it true or not. That was what I had hoped would come after a Hillary victory. Disgust but freedom of movement. There is no freedom of movement now.

@approxinfinity — See that is crazy. I look at the Republican party as fractured at best. Here they have two branches of the government and they can’t get out of each others way to get anything done. They have all the cards and they still can’t unite. Just kind of weird to me.

The Dems kind of scare me. These cats stick together no matter what. Right or wrong it doesn’t matter they stick together. I also really hate all these entitlements programs they want to bring to the table without any real way of paying for them. Just look at Obamacare. Though maybe their heart was in the right place. Yet they undercut their own program. The premise was that the young Americans would pick up the tab, yet then they allow the same young Americans to stay on their parents health care plan until 26? Kind of mind boggling. I also get the feeling they lean towards a one world government/globalist mindset.

As for Hillary I just couldn’t vote for her. I have no problem with a woman being president. There was just nothing I liked about her. This election was in the bag for her, and she blew it big time. This isn’t on Trump or the Dem party. This is on her. She just took it for granted that she was going to win. I’m not sure I would want that kind of thinking person as president of the United States.

This may sound weird? Yet if Trump does well. It could signal a change in how Americans vote in future elections. I mean I would wish any president to do well. Yet if Trump does well then maybe some of these lesser candidates can get some more pub even though they lack in dollars? Just a thought.

I think one of the real problems with this two party system we have today is the old cats stay in power for way to long. Something I think that is really hurting the Dem party as a whole. I would love to see and be in favor of terms limits for senators and house representatives. I think new blood would go a long way in changing some stale and corrupt ways of our current two party system.

@JayHawkFanToo the main reasons I can figure why the dems might not be doing well are 1. They aren’t good at politics and they are rolling out boring has beens 2. The party of inclusivity is losing a public that is increasingly disconnected from society.

@approxinfinity — What do you mean by losing a public disconnected from society?

Dems seem to do quite well in Cali and New York, that is quite diverse in cultural and public view. Yet the world is bigger than just the east and west coast. The fly over country or middle America still has a voice.

If you ask me Hillary got cocky and thought she could keep the hold the Blue states and went after the big prizes of Florida and Texas. Not paying attention to middle America. I believe the belief was that with all the Immigration disputes over the Latino/Mexicans. She could turn those states Blue. Declaring an ultimate victory.

Sadly she didn’t protect her parties bread and butter. She just assumed they would vote Dem because they always do. Not realizing that not everybody even those in her party thought Obama walked on water. Not to mention a lot of Dem voters were willing to usher America into Socialism with their love affair with Bernie Sanders.

Then again some Republicans have that all or nothing mindset. You would think that a senate and house ran by Republicans would defuse Bernie, yet I’m not so sure?

I mean can you imagine the cost to the tax payers for free College? Don’t get me wrong I think College is way to expensive. Yet free? Holy Cow.

I shouldn’t say this but KU? As long as you have proof of an in state address. You get the in state price of attending. Ssssh

I mean that I think that people are looking out for themselves first and foremost. They aren’t willing to sacrifice for the greater good. There used to be more of that sentiment.

So things like universal healthcare, or free college education as you alluded to… Well people size that up and generally only get behind it if they can immediately see how it will directly benefit them. They don’t think how it might indirectly benefit them, if everyone might be healthier and more well educated. And I get it, you ask how we can afford that. And that’s a valid thing to discuss; my point is just that people don’t get past the point of understanding the value of it, not enough to try to figure out how it could work, because they don’t feel like the greater good is that important. So they just immediately rally behind the first guy willing to shoot it down without really thinking on it.

We are a country deeply divided. And I think most of us most of the time are focused on looking out for us and ours while feeling disconnected and maybe a little lonely, like the country is getting away from us and we have to take it back. So we rally behind people who say they are going to do that, take it back, because they know that’s how we feel, but they don’t take it back. They take the vote and run to Washington and do what they really want to do because elections are posturing and their reality is something that happens in between.

Long version: The Dems have been struggling because they don’t seem genuine in what they are trying to accomplish. Entitlements are the only thing they have right now to drum up votes. So anything and everything we can give away they are. And education and healthcare are just two things that are very hard to shoot down publicly.

The reason I feel this way, not too long ago Bill Clinton ran on a tough immigration stance because that was what they country was worried about at the time. He also repealed many, many entitlements and caused unemployment to drop to one of the lowest rates in history. Fast forward only 3 presidents, Trump runs on the same thing and gets ridiculed.

You can also point directly to the DNC choosing Hilary before the primaries even started. She would have won anyways, but they got scared. Because they got scared they made mistakes. And those mistakes kept the Democratic party from rallying around her.

I think that EVERYONE would be ok with free healthcare and free education, but there are more important things to fix first. Lowering the debt has to be priority #1. If we could get our debt down to an appropriate amount, we could do some really good things. 6% of our tax dollars are spent on interest on the debt. I, personally find that to be appalling. Obamacare is $110B all by itself, and only increasing. Or, another 3% of our tax dollar revenue. Entitlements is a whole other things. Medicare, Social Security and Unemployment are literally bankrupting us all by themselves. Throw in wars (Republicans) and then Adding a massive and expensive healthcare plan (Dems) and all of a sudden debt has gone up exponentially. Both parties are to blame.

What would rally bipartisan ship is a real 30 year plan from a party. One that reduces entitlements now and reduces the debt by an enormous amount. If we do that, we can really start to do some good. You talked about how people don’t want to do things now for the future. I don’t think that is true. I think that people want to do that, but they don’t have a party to rally around. I fully agree that we should have free education and free healthcare. Because what is not to like about a smarter, healthier country? But the only way to do that is to save up money first. We can’t continue to recklessly spend money like a college kid who gets their first credit card. The truth, we need to cut federal government across the board. Military needs cut, significantly. Social Security needs to begin its phase out. Obamacare needs repealed and replaced with a skin and bones plan that just gets us through until we can actually afford it. (And nothing is stopping states from introducing these plans. Just look at New York state). Unemployment needs to become much stricter. And the entire budget just needs to become tighter.

We also need to increase revenue during this cut. Hammer the budget. Increase taxes on the rich and upper-middle class. Tell them what it is for. Tell them this is for the future. Make sure they know that this money is so that this country can become the America everyone used to be truly proud of. Not the one currently being ran by a celebrity. This is the legacy that they get to leave, if they don’t help out now. On top of that, we need to crack down hard on illegal immigration. All we want, is for those companies and employees to pay the taxes they are supposed to. We are talking about billions of dollars in tax revenue we lose because of a relaxed policy on illegal immigration. If we allowed “work visas” for these immigrants and fined businesses more than they save for hiring illegals, we could increase our tax revenue by hundreds of billions.

Of course, this will never happen with current party lines and no term limits. Reps would never be for higher taxes and Dems would never be for cutting out a major future voter base in the American Born children of illegal immigrants…

Anyways that’s my rant.

Short Version: Dems aren’t genuine in what they are trying to do. Bill Clinton ran a more suave campaign with several talking points exactly the same as Donald Trump. They cheated in the DNC.

Without budget cuts, and increased revenue we will never be able to afford free healthcare or education. It is both parties faults between Republican wars and Democratic entitlements.

Can we start a 3rd party? We can be the Bucketeer party. Both Red and Blue.

@approxinfinity — I see that in union shops a lot. It’s never really about what’s best for the country but what’s best for the union and it’s workers.

I don’t know maybe just call me a hater? I just don’t like the idea of free healthcare and College. I’m not against social programs helping Americans when they are down on their luck. I just hate the idea of American citizens becoming totally dependent on the government.

When more people become dependent on the government. The power transfers from the people to the government. The checks and balances begin to fade. Not a good thing.

Do we really want the government getting more control over our schools, and colleges?

This model of lets punish the rich and upper middle class doesn’t work. It’s just a mechanism to lure and inspire those that don’t have much in this world. It’s saying, “you can’t get it yourself, but I can get for you. Just depend on me”. It’s a sham. Maybe this stuff worked back in the early 1900’s, when the world was bigger place. However this march to globalism has changed everything. The world isn’t so big anymore. Those with money will just leave, they already have in some ways.

I guess I am that guy that doesn’t know what he really wants, but does know what he doesn’t want. I’m all for coming up with programs and plans to up lift our fellow Americans and improve our way of life. I just prefer to do it without the Federal Government involved.

Here’s the thing with democracy. At its core, democracy is about majority rule, but also minority rights. The majority cannot simply overwhelm the minority because they have the votes and can force whatever they want down the minorities throats (when I say minority, I am speaking of both political minorities and also social and economic minorities).

Unfortunately, partisan politics (both sides are to blame) have devolved into a “my way or the highway” position on just about every issue. This isn’t how things were ever intended. For example, even now, most everything in both state legislatures and Congress, passes by a significant majority. The problem is, when we get to certain issues that get politicized, those issues divide almost exactly down party lines.

For example, the electoral college was previously not a partisan issue. Democrats have generally been more in favor of scrapping it in favor of a popular vote, but Republicans were never that far behind. In 2000, after Bush-Gore, the issue split for a few years, but by 2010, the numbers were within a few percentage points of each other with roughly 60% of members in both parties in favor of scrapping the electoral college in favor of a popular vote. Today, those numbers have Democrats at 75% in favor of junking the electoral college, while fewer than 25% of Republicans think the same.

Every issue isn’t a red and blue question. The answers generally don’t lie on the fringes, seeking to be either as conservative or as liberal as possible. The answers lie closer to the middle because those are the answers that will be serve the most people in this country on both sides of the spectrum.

@DoubleDD Federal government was already in Healthcare before Obamacare and definitely is currently in education.

But, you could argue the reason the cost of both of those has sky rocketed is because the feds got involved, or more involved than they should have.

Education has gone up so much and it is 100% due to the federal government. Once states realized that the federal government will loan out $30k to every student, tuition rates have skyrocketed.

Most of these social issues could be solved at the state level, as like-minded people are more likely to live in the same state. If California wants to provide healthcare to all of their citizens let them.

Federal government is there to help in disputes between states and provide military protection. Most everything else could be decided at the state level.

But, that’s just my opinion. You can’t make 100% of this country happy. But you might be able to make 80% of it happy if you let states run the show themselves.

@Kcmatt7 You summed it perfectly: Venezuela would be a rich nation if it was ran correctly. Too much corruption and mistrust. Still brandishing about their “rebel” rhetoric, while their people starve. Some revolution. But no, we cant let big biz run business, especially since that is what they’re good at. No, keep the controlling hand TIGHT, as you choke off your own people, and kill off, literally any hope your own people had with that colorful rebel rhetoric. How many times in history are we going to see this sad story play out yet again. Act 232444543, and counting…
Next micro-brained rebel…please…

So we rally behind people who say they are going to do that, take it back, because they know that’s how we feel, but they don’t take it back. They take the vote and run to Washington and do what they really want to do because elections are posturing and their reality is something that happens in between.

One of the problems is that the skills that are needed to win elections has very little correlation with the skills needed to perform the job of the elected position.

If the election process were set up so that the populace would actually evaluate and make decisions based the qualifications of the candidates – that is, the candidate’s ability to actually perform the requirements of the job – it would be a start.

@Kcmatt7 under current Venezuelan rule, investment only would lead to war when they basically mis-appropriate the money to continue to prop up the socialist administration if we wanted to recoup any of it.

The alternative theory is that the Venezuelan dictator decided to rebel against the currency-backed world economy and paid the price, as some past dictators tried to do, & shortly thereafter met their hastened fates. Chavez supposedly visited the US, and within 3 mos was dead of a rare form of aggressive cancer. Now Putin has expressed interest in offerring an economy based on something other…& thus put himself in severe peril.

Where do you get your information, CNN? Chavez was diagnosed with Cancer in June 2011 and died in March 2013 after getting treatment in Cuba. Perhaps, if he would have seeked treatment in the US, like all the tinhorm dictators do, he would have lived longer, all he had to do is come here illegally and the American taxpayers would have ended up paying the bill.

If you want loyalty get a dog; better yet, get two just in case one turns on you.

Not picking on you. Yet a groomed and professional politician versus a multi billionaire? I’m taking the billionaire. Many of groomed and professional politicians have led many of young Americans to war and Death. Don’t need to be a groomed and professional politician to do that. Just have to look at the popular polls.

Look I get it everybody loves that person that can give a great speech. Yet what does a good speech do if nothing changes? All I see is the politicians getting richer and the promises they make going unfulfilled. Look at Bernie he promises a fair and socialist type government. Yet the dude owns 3 houses and is a millionaire. Now how is that possible from a person that has never worked a non government job in his life? Where did that money come from? Yet somehow he cares?

Look at the Great Obama? He railed against the rich and wall street. Now look what he’s doing. Giving speeches at $400,000 a pop to the same people he railed against. Don’t see him down in the inner city giving speeches of hope. Do ya? Yet somehow he cares?

Nah keep those groomed and professional politicians/lawyers. Give me a billionaire that actually knows what a budget is. Hey you don’t like Trump then give me those libs Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Hell I’ll vote them. Just don’t give me anymore groomed and professional politicians. I’ve heard enough good speeches. I want some substance.

@DoubleDD I’m not advocating for any particular party or candidate. I’m advocating for a system of electing leaders that have competencies that translate to the role for which they are elected. The skills and capabilities that win elections have nothing to do with whether the person can perform the job.

A typical hiring process for a chief executive would evaluate candidates based on their demonstrated competency in basic executive functions and would look at relevant aspects of their history to determine which candidate was best fit for the responsibilities of the role.

^ This is not a description of our current process for selecting the Chief Executive of the United States.

The national election process /hiring process does the following:

Parties and primaries that operate like 2 powerful hiring agencies that focus on putting forth only one candidate each

The candidates represent dramatically different philosophies and spend most time on fringe interests that have little to do with the majority of the job they will be doing.

The candidates don’t make a case for why they are best; they smear the other candidate. Discussion about topics germane to the job are overshadowed by provocative statements, innuendo and scandalous accusations.

I don’t think any rational voter would advocate that the best and most qualified candidate for chief executive of the United States is one who has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and demonstrated pattern of managing enterprises into dissolution.

But Trump wasn’t elected for his executive acumen. His (in)abilities and (in)competencies were rendered irrelevant by the current process of evaluating and selecting candidates.

I’m not comparing Trump to Obama or Clinton or any other particular person. Rather, I’m saying we should hold a presidential candidate up to the standard demanded by the job.

Is this really the best person we could find to fill this position? I don’t think even Melania would answer yes to that question.

Maybe he’s the better of the two choices we were given (or maybe not depending on your view), but let’s not delude ourselves into believing that he’s the best person (e.g. person with the best qualifications) we could hire for the job.

Our hiring process is broken. And the stakes are pretty high with this job.

Politics are always a tricky business. However the reality is. The Best people for the job never get elected, and they never will.

Crazy as it seems and flies in the face of democracy. As along as average Americans get to vote the best person will never be elected. Americans want to be inspired by a future president. They want to be connected to that said person. American voters can be very fickle.

Take Bush Jr. for example. After 9/11 happened he had full support to go into Iraq and start a war. That changed when Americans became weary of the war. Democrats sensing blood in the water changed their position over night. All at seizing power in the next election. This is politics and it won’t change because of the things I mentioned earlier.

I do like Trump, just like I would like a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. We have been electing groomed politicians/lawyers for decades. It’s not working. If at the bare minimum he shakes things up I’m happy. You might say that Trump isn’t fit and I might say he’s just what we need? So who is wrong and who is right?

I didn’t care much for Obama not because he was black or a Dem. I just felt he lacked real experience and didn’t care much for his anti American views. Yet some felt he was exactly what this country needed and even felt he could do no wrong. So who is right or wrong?

And this is kind of my rebuttal which I think you’re right. Is that if your not one of the chosen by the party, can’t give a great speech, don’t have charisma, and the media doesn’t like you. That person has no chance of winning even though they maybe perfect for the Job.

Tell you the truth I would vote for Oprah at this point, as long as it’s not a chosen, silver tongued, groomed politician. Hate or love Trump he got elected because the American people want change. Bottom line.

LIke I said earlier I agree with your points can’t argue them. However to become president you have to be elected, and as long as there are elections. The games will be played.